9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal by Revenue against Commissioner (Appeals) order 2. Consideration of amendments in Customs Notification 3. Dispute resolution with reference to Notifications of 1997 and 2004 4. Retrospective or prospective effect of Notification amendment 5. Prima facie case for stay of the order Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur. The Revenue requested a stay of the order, which was considered by the Tribunal. 2. The impugned order was passed in compliance with the Tribunal's remand order, which highlighted the importance of amendments in the Customs Notification. The Tribunal directed the case to be sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh order considering the amendments made in January 2004. 3. The crux of the matter revolved around deciding the dispute with reference to Notification Nos. 29/2004-Cus. dated 28-1-2004 or Notifications No. 28 & 29/97-Cus., Dated 1-4-1997. The Tribunal emphasized that the dispute should be resolved with respect to the previous Notification of 1997, not the later Notification of 2004. 4. The Tribunal addressed the question of whether the amendment of the Notification dated 1-4-1997 should have retrospective or prospective effect. Following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the amendment should be given retrospective effect. This direction indicated that the impugned order was not erroneous. 5. After considering the retrospective effect of the notifications, the Tribunal found no prima facie case for staying the order. Consequently, the stay application was rejected, and the appeal was scheduled for final hearing on 14-2-2008. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved and the Tribunal's decision regarding the appeal and the amendments in the Customs Notification, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings.
|
